P
Paul_theApostle
Guest
And what if RC is actually ‘orthodox’ and has fullness of faith as Catholics do believe
why then in this case isnt there union?
- Status
why then in this case isnt there union?
P
Pork_Roll
Guest
So when a Catholic priest administers the sacraments, he has a different understanding of those sacraments than the orthodox?
These disaffected Anglicans approached the catholic church for union, and not the other way. The fact that the church has allowed these groups to enter en mass and to retain their liturgy and is acknowledging the ‘catholicity’ of their faith. There are many flavours of Anglicans. The church doesn’t rule out valid sacraments in some cases. The EO do not have an official teaching on the validity of Catholic sacraments, only opinions which range from reasonable to stupid.
I never said that. I said that for union the EO must recognize in Rome what Rome recognizes in the EO: namely, valid sacraments as a sister church.
I believe that both sides can agree to a structure that doesn’t compromise the faith. But it will take both sides to be open to losing (and gaining) something in the union. The idea of a 1st millennium papacy is a good example. The Catholic church will never accept that the see of Rome has no universal authority. The Catholic church could change how that universal authority is understood or applied.
P
Pork_Roll
Guest
I don’t expect communion at present between the churches, but only respect and humility between them.
The same faith, like it means to you. But we both have the same mother, same liturgies, same understanding of the sacraments and the same apostolic succession. Why wouldn’t we both have valid sacraments?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Clearly because one of us is wrong. Who is wrong, is where we disagree.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Actually, Orthodox would see that very claim as heresy (probably for the same reason you assert the western church would never give it up, which is that it is taught as a dogma).
Since this dogma was unknown in the early church it cannot be true.
Now, it is very possible that a number of synods could join together for some common purpose, and it is possible that a synod could grant it’s Metropolitan some extraordinary powers temporarily. This is what I believe the western churches have done. They made a Papacy for themselves because they thought they needed one. They thought that they needed a super-strong Metropolitan/Patriarch to counter-balance the powers of the kings and nobility who were riding the church like a horse for generations.
But this is a discipline, not a dogma, and changeable. Teaching a discipline as if it were a dogma is wrong.
Now if the western synod wants a Pope-like figure to dominate or even control church business, and if it wants a large administrative staff in Rome as some sort of parallel hierarchy, well then I say let them have it.
It just doesn’t belong anywhere but inside the western churches who volunteered for it.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Absolutely. There is certainly a difference in what a sacrament is, let alone what the agreed upon sacraments are.
But that has nothing to do with it. We could have the exact same understanding of the sacraments and still be of different faiths. The Old Catholics illustrate this point quite clearly, as they do share the understanding of the sacraments.
The Catholic Church is the one who has come to us seeking to discuss union.
Please provide sources that the Catholic Church recognizes the “catholicity” of Anglicans, because that seems counter to the Papal Bull, still in force, that declares they don’t have valid clergy.
And by “reasonable to stupid” you mean “agreeing with you, to disagreeing with you.”
If you are going to accuse us of being “anti-Catholic”, don’t turn around and be anti-Orthodox.
So you’re saying you think it is more important that the Orthodox Church agree that you’re sacraments are valid, then that we think you’re right on everything else? In otherwords, if we thought you wrong on the nature of Christ, you’d still think it more important that we believe you have valid sacraments?
I think you need to get your priorities straight. The faith is the most important thing. Nothing comes before that. The sacraments exist to help us, and strengthen us in the faith. Without the faith they are nothing. The Eucharist, assuming complete validity, will do no good to an Atheist, or a Buddhist, or a Shintoist.
If Rome is only willing to grant word play, then she will have to make due with the Eastern Catholic Churches. Accepting grandeous claims that we did not believe is how we got into this mess in the first place.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I am not convinced about the Apostolic succession, I know my church has it, but otherwise I can’t say.
The Holy Spirit goes where it wills. It could be that the Anglicans and Lutherans have always valid sacraments, maybe even the Presbyterians.
On Judgment Day we could all be very surprised … 
We can’t tell God where he can and cannot go.
So I am personally not concerned that your church has valid sacraments or not, and I don’t on that account fear for your salvation (or that of any of the many Roman Catholics I know so well). I know that there is a lot of good in the Roman Catholic churches and clergy and people and I respect that.
But you have to understand that this issue from an Orthodox perspective is not really about whether you have ‘valid sacraments’, that is putting the cart before the horse. This fixation on validity is not that important unless we believe the same things (we don’t), so don’t worry about whether you think Orthodox ‘have it’ or not, we certainly won’t lose sleep over what you think about our Holy Mysteries.
The reason we cannot share communion is that you do not believe what Orthodox Catholics are supposed to believe and therefore you are outside of the church.
Forget about the ‘validity’ of the sacraments, that is secondary. If we shared the common received faith then we could figure out who has valid bishops and valid sacraments and the Holy Spirit will surely make up for what may be lacking.
P
Pork_Roll
Guest
Look we can argue about this forever and never come to an agreement. I believe the evidence is there, you don’t. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be Catholic.
They do: marriage and baptism. As for the Eucharist and confession, they can’t, because they do not believe in what our church’s believe. God doesn’t force sacraments to work when you don’t want them too.
I agree but we both have the same faith concerning the Eucharist and other sacraments.
Who are you to say, the Pope? You are certainly in the Church, maybe in a slightly deficient state. I guess we will disagree on this one.
The catholic church has worked for unity among Christians with all the communities. It doesn’t mean that they are looking to enter into those churches but more that we can work out a path to union without compromise.
The fact that you think we are so different tells me you must be a protestant convert.
P
Paul_theApostle
Guest
Hi Pork Roll,i just wanted to ask,do you like/eat pork rolls?
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Byz Guy,
31. The obvious conclusion from the foregoing remarks is that in this matter the Apostolic See has sometimes agreed in certain circumstances and in consideration of the character of individual people to make specific concessions which it has refused to others in different circumstances among different peoples. So to complete the task which We have begun, We have only to show that this Apostolic See has kindly allowed an Oriental or Greek people to use a Latin ceremony to which they were devoted, particularly if they adopted this ceremony in ancient times and if the bishops did not oppose it at any time, but approved it either expressly or implicitly.
The highlighted portion that you did not take into consideration pretty much mitigates or cancels your suggestion. One can see that the “concession” is premised not on a papally imposed initiative, but on something that is priorly understood to have been wanted by the Eastern or Oriental Church. That is not a uniltateral or papally initiated imposition.
You are here referring to my statement that the inclusion of filioque in the Oriental Creeds was a collegial decision. To understand the matter, you need to understand something about the Oriental Orthodox representation at Florence. The Syriac and Armenian delegates possessed the authority to make agreements. The decision to include the filioque in their Creed was with the express agreement of the representatives. Based on the Armenian and Syriac examples alone, it is certainly possible for you to argue that there was no true collegial action, but that they were bullied into acceptance. But we have more evidence that the prescriptions of Florence was truly collegial in its scope and intent. In distinction from the Armenians and Syriacs, the Coptic delegation did not have executive authority; the Bulla for the Copts explicitly states that its Decrees had yet to obtain the necessary approval of the Coptic Synod. If, as you claim, Florence was a one-man show (as Absolutist Petrine advocates claim), then how do you reconcile that view with the explicit admission that the Bulla for the Copts required the approval of the Coptic Synod?
Here is the paragraph in full from which you quoted (with the missing portion highlighted):
31. The obvious conclusion from the foregoing remarks is that in this matter the Apostolic See has sometimes agreed in certain circumstances and in consideration of the character of individual people to make specific concessions which it has refused to others in different circumstances among different peoples. So to complete the task which We have begun, We have only to show that this Apostolic See has kindly allowed an Oriental or Greek people to use a Latin ceremony to which they were devoted, particularly if they adopted this ceremony in ancient times and if the bishops did not oppose it at any time, but approved it either expressly or implicitly.
The highlighted portion that you did not take into consideration pretty much mitigates or cancels your suggestion. One can see that the “concession” is premised not on a papally imposed initiative, but on something that is priorly understood to have been wanted by the Eastern or Oriental Church. That is not a uniltateral or papally initiated imposition.
Actually, “to concede” means to “give in,” not “to give permission.” Giving in (i.e., to a request of your brother bishops) is indeed the language of conciliarity. IIRC, English is not your first language, so perhaps you misunderstood what “concession” means?
On this point, there is yet another very important mitigating factor that it seems you did not take into consideration, which involves the different version of events given by Pius IX and Benedict XIV on the events of the Synod of Zamoscia.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Wow.
That’s an interesting comment, it tells me more about you than it tells you about me.
M
mardukm
Guest
I would say that since brother Nine_Two’s statement in post #106 in this thread so far, I am more in agreement with the comments of our EO brethren.
Blessings,
Marduk
Blessings,
Marduk
P
Peter_J
Guest
What, no takers on that?
But all joking aside, I think Pork Roll brought up a point that is really crucial.Namely, is the problem that Orthodox ideas are wrong, or is the problem that Orthodox ideas are stupid? (Before anyone starts complaining, please notice that I said the ideas, not the people.) If it is the latter (and I’m not necessarily saying that it is, but *if *it is), then surely that would justify some of the unorthodox (no pun intended) methods that Catholics use to dialogue with Orthodox, e.g. propagandizing.
M
mardukm
Guest
Orthodox ideas are not wrong, but are valid and holy. It is Orthodox anti-Catholic polemics that are “stupid” (to use your term).What, no takers on that?
Namely, is the problem that Orthodox ideas are wrong, or is the problem that Orthodox ideas are stupid?
Not sure what “propagandizing” means. Do you mean prozelytizing? Prozelytizing is forbidden by the Catholic Magisterium towards our Orthodox brethren.
Blessings,
Marduk
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well notice I said “e.g. propagandizing”. That’s not to exclude other possible examples like proselytizing.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not to get off on a tangent, but can you give a quote or link? I’d like to see the precise wording of that forbiddence (forbiddage?).
A
Art321
Guest
I didn’t quite catch that. What comments are you referring to?
A
Art321
Guest
I wouldn’t take it that far at all but I would like to thank you and Nine Two for taking the time to present the Orthodox position on how they view the Catholic Church.
Of course, I don’t agree with everything you guys said. But I did on one thing although I forget who of you actually said it. I agree that only one of our Churches has the Fullness of the Faith but who that is something we will have to disagree upon. Although I imagine if union ever takes place, one of us will have to admit we were wrong on this front.
Still I consider both of you my brethren and wish you both the best of luck on your journeys with our Lord.
God bless.
C
Credo_ergo_sum
Guest
What do you think are examples of stupid or wrong Orthodox ideas?
B
Byz_Guy
Guest
Brother Marduk,
Allatae Sunt was NOT only written re: Orientals attending Mass at Latin Churches. Yes, that’s mentioned. But, it covers much more ground. You’re trying to mitigate what it says by restricting it’s application.
papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm
Similarly with Zamosc. These sort of Synods were often orchestrated by the Eastern Congregation. As Pius IX said:
ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9omnems.htm
Thanks for the reply. I have only a moment now and will post a short answer for now and will come back to this in a few days.
Allatae Sunt was NOT only written re: Orientals attending Mass at Latin Churches. Yes, that’s mentioned. But, it covers much more ground. You’re trying to mitigate what it says by restricting it’s application.
You’re not reading the document. Florence was not the only occasion being discussed.
papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm
Popes have at times required the recitation of the Filioque of the Eastern Churches. This was not just a situation of Greeks at Mass in Latin Churches.
Similarly with Zamosc. These sort of Synods were often orchestrated by the Eastern Congregation. As Pius IX said:
ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9omnems.htm
- Status